named person - ruled unlawful

[peggyundercrackers]

don't know if anyone else was watching the supreme court ruling this morning but they have ruled the named person scheme unlawful. I am glad the court had sense to rule this sham unlawful. I am disappointed that previous courts didn't do more to stop this nonsense.

Details of the ruling can be found www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0216.html

"No-one has ever suggested that having a single point of contact for parents and/or children is a bad thing. But unfortunately that is not what the law set out. The law does not mention parents or children's rights, their consent, or even consultation.

Named Persons were clearly to be assigned as a point of contact about parents and children, not for parents and children (except in a 'we know best' way). That is why the Supreme Court upheld the appeal – the law as passed allowed for non-consensual sharing of information about children and their families without any threshold or protection. That, as the government was warned, breaches European Convention rights to private and family life."

Maggie Mellon

Yes, but as that will have to be amended its a bit of a moot point...

Depending on the proposed amendments.

Wouldn't it help your case to give ways the current legislative proposal could be amended for the good of all instead of just shouting down anyone who objects to it?

A big part of the reason there is so much concern is the apparent unwillingness from scotgov to debate the concerns raised.

I do not see that there is any point to the legislation once the legal concerns have been addressed. Joined up working was ever a goal and always available to the services for any child deemed at risk.

"A big part of the reason there is so much concern is the apparent unwillingness from scotgov to debate the concerns raised."

That I do agree with, they are with everything, very bad at addressing concerns, this has been no different.

"I do not see that there is any point to the legislation once the legal concerns have been addressed. Joined up working was ever a goal and always available to the services for any child deemed at risk."

It was only happening in some areas though. While it's best practise and not mandatory it just doesn't happen in some places.

With the best will in the world, making best practice mandatory does not solve a problem caused by insufficient resource. It can worsen the problem considerably as corners are further cut by fear of reprisal.

No system is perfect, creating a system which bypasses civil liberties is dangerous for this reason.

I am not talking about professionals ignoring parents I am talking about professionals who victimise families who disagree with their views (or ask for a 2nd opinion).

Creating a system which bypasses civil liberties is dangerous. Full stop.

I agree. It looks easily open to abuse.